Trans woman Kate L. Blatt this week filed a legal challenge of the Americans with Disabilities Act’s exclusion of gender-identity disorder as a protected disability.
The ADA protects people with disabilities from discrimination in private-sector employment, public accommodations and governmental services.
Blatt contends that Congress acted unconstitutionally in 1989 when excluding GID as a protected disability under the ADA.
Other excluded impairments include pedophilia, voyeurism, exhibitionism, compulsive gambling, pyromania and kleptomania.
Blatt’s legal challenge is part of her federal lawsuit against Cabela’s Inc.
Blatt worked at Cabela’s as a seasonal stocker between September 2006 and March 2007. She alleges job discrimination based on her sex and disability.
The store, located in Hamburg, specializes in outdoor sports items.
Cabela’s banned Blatt from a female restroom, thus discriminating against her due to her disability, according to Blatt’s lawsuit.
But Cabela’s argues that since GID isn’t covered under the ADA, Blatt couldn’t have been discriminated against because of a disability.
In a 45-page brief filed Jan. 20, Blatt lambastes ADA’s GID exclusion.
“The ADA isolates, segregates and injures those transgender individuals that the ADA should protect,” the brief states.
The brief argues that GID was excluded due to moral animus against transgender individuals.
“The only objective that the GID exclusion was intended to achieve is moral condemnation of those transgender individuals who fall within its scope,” the brief states. “The Supreme Court has cast aside moral animus and moral disapproval as compelling, important and legitimate governmental reasons for imposing a legislative classification. As such, the GID exclusion is unconstitutional.”
The brief also challenges assertions that GID’s exclusion protects private employers from frivolous lawsuits.
“This court should invalidate the only alleged non-moral based justification for the GID exclusion: protecting the private sector,” the brief states. “This lone ‘justification’ was instead a pretext for permitting government-sanctioned moral animus.”
The brief emphasizes that transgender people are deserving of anti-bias protections.
“The Equal Protection Clause [of the Constitution] was enacted to shield discrete groups of people like transgender individuals against this animus-based government reasoning, and the GID exclusion should therefore be declared unconstitutional.”
Additionally, Blatt contends that excluding GID is tantamount to government-sanctioned discrimination.
“Simply put, the exclusion of GID represents government-sanctioned discrimination against transgender people because it codifies their unequal status in the ADA,” the brief states.
As of presstime, neither Cabela’s nor a representative of the federal government replied to Blatt’s brief.
“We’ve notified the Attorney General of the United States of our claim, and the government has 60 days to respond, but there’s no requirement that they do so,” said Neelima Vanguri, an attorney for Blatt.
Blatt is seeking lost wages and compensatory and punitive damages, and has requested a jury trial, according to court records.
The case is pending before U.S. District Judge Jeffrey L. Schmehl.
“We’re optimistic based on the legal merits of the claim,” Vanguri concluded. “We can’t speak to how the judge will rule. But based on our legal analysis, we’re convinced that this exclusion is unconstitutional.”
Case law has interpreted the ADA to cover disabilities that include bipolar disorder, carpal tunnel syndrome, insomnia, obesity, psoriatic arthritis, depression, diabetes, eating disorders, monocular vision, stuttering, back injuries and anxiety disorder.